If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Maybe you should take that gunko bambozo for your memory! (or whatever it's called, I forget)

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

The point made by Dawkins, is not that Soviet Communism did not shed a lot of blood. His point is that “[t]here is not the smallest evidence that [atheism] systematically influences people to do bad things.”

And I think he is correct. That Soviet Communism was atheistic & bloody, is true. But that tells us nothing about any other atheists, many of whom are decent and moral people.

The point made by Dawkins, is not that Soviet Communism did not shed a lot of blood. His point is that “[t]here is not the smallest evidence that [atheism] systematically influences people to do bad things.”

And I think he is correct. That Soviet Communism was atheistic & bloody, is true. But that tells us nothing about any other atheists, many of whom are decent and moral people.

They are moral despite atheism, not because of it.

A consequence of atheism is there is no basis for morality other than some agreed upon standard that evolved over time in various societies. Killing someone just to get their stuff or because you are mad at them isn't objectively wrong, it is just that society has defined it is wrong. A society could have easily decided that doing that was perfectly fine and a great way to get ahead in the world (a.k.a. Klingons in Star Trek) - so there is no reason except convention to have any morals at all. If you want to kill someone for fun, there is nothing wrong with it if you don't get caught by society.

The reason people who are atheists DO have morals is because atheism is false. God has built a moral compass into our very being, even when they don't believe in him.

Romans 2:14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

A consequence of atheism is there is no basis for morality other than some agreed upon standard that evolved over time in various societies.

Fair point, but, Christianity could be described as an “agreed-upon standard that evolved over time in various societies”. It is not clear that it has any more real authority than any other ethical code. It does not stand out as unmistakeably Divine.

Killing someone just to get their stuff or because you are mad at them isn't objectively wrong, it is just that society has defined it is wrong. A society could have easily decided that doing that was perfectly fine and a great way to get ahead in the world (a.k.a. Klingons in Star Trek) - so there is no reason except convention to have any morals at all. If you want to kill someone for fun, there is nothing wrong with it if you don't get caught by society.

The reason people who are atheists DO have morals is because atheism is false. God has built a moral compass into our very being, even when they don't believe in him.

Romans 2:14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

“Even when they don’t believe in Him” - exactly. People do not need to advert to God at all, in order to be moral, virtuous and upright people. That God is - from a Christian POV - the Source of all the goodness in them, however true in principle, is of no practical importance whatsoever to them. Plato did not come across the Four Cardinal Virtues of Prudence, Justice, Temperance & Fortitude by reading or hearing the Old Testament, but (so it seems) by thinking them out for himself. A man who lives by those virtues, will be much worthier of respect, admiration and imitation, than a bad Christian who is a stranger to them.

People do not need a transcendent reason to behave well. Conversely, acknowledging a transcendent God as the sole ultimate Origin of ethics does not, in practice, mean that one is going to behave any better than one’s atheist neighbour. On the contrary, acknowledging such a God is entirely compatible with depraved behaviour, but also with finding Divine approbation for depraved behaviour. Joshua is shown in Joshua 10 - whether as accurate history or not, is not directly relevant - as exterminating the people of three towns, in obedience to an allegedly Divine command.

Marcus Aurelius, in his campaigns, was not directed by the God of Joshua. STM that Marcus Aurelius had a far purer ethic than Joshua. It may have been of a less exalted origin, but, by the same token, it was less liable to become diabolical. Joshua and his brand of theism make a much less attractive picture than the Stoic Roman Emperor. The Assyrians had what they thought were the commands of their gods for the cruelties they inflicted on their enemies. The trouble with a supposed Divine Command is, that if the recipient finds it dubious, or worse, it can’t be argued with: there is no “equipment” within the Biblical books, to enable what seems to be a morally repugnant Divine Command to be challenged.

The assumption, that I think I see in your post, that people without God will, almost as though by necessity, behave very badly, seems to me to be unfounded & unnecessary. It is a possibility, but not the only one. If people are encouraged to love and honour and prize what is noble, just, and of good report, and if they are given persuasive reasons to love and to do what is good and kind and wise and upright, they should turn out all right, even if God is never mentioned. There is in atheism no inherent reason why atheists cannot be models of all the natural virtues. Whether they are or not, depends on what they have been taught to value - a Christianity of a low moral tone is unlikely to inspire them with a love of virtue.